SOCIAL STATUS, PUBLIC SPEAKING AND PRIVATE TEACHING: THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PAUL'S

PREACHING ACTIVITY

by

STANLEY KENT STOWERS Brown University, Providence

I

There is a rather widespread popular view that early Christian missionaries won their converts by standing on the proverbial soap box and preaching the gospel, often persuasively, to crowds of pagans in public places. There is also a more sophisticated view among scholars that some early Christian preachers followed the practise of Cynic philosophers who addressed audiences on street corners and in public markets. 1 This picture of the bearded philosopher who would bend the ears of any whom he could attract is a commonplace in Greco-Roman writers.2 Authors often remark-

I References to this view of Paul's preaching are very widespread. For example: Dieter Georgi, "Forms of Religious Propaganda," Jesus in His Time, ed. H. J. Schultz (Philadelphia, 1971), 124-131. Georgi says, p. 124, "What would the or- dinary citizen of a Hellenistic city have been likely to think if he came across Chris- tian missionaries like Philip, Barnabas, or Paul preaching at a street corner or in the marketplace? The answer is: nothing out of the ordinary. He might even have gone out into the street to hear preaching of this kind. What Acts chapter 17 says of the Athenians was true of the people of the Mediterranean world in general: "All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new" ( 1 7 : 2 1 ) . This taste was met by a host of wander- ing preachers who propagated their various schemes of salvation in the streets and markets of the cities and also in the staging posts of the great highways." For a more technical work which reflects similar views and applies them to the interpreta- tion of II Cor. see Georgi, Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief (Neukirken- Vluyn, Germany, 1964). Also: C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York, 1957), 43. M. S. Enslin, The Ethics of Paul (New York, 1957), 41-43. C. H. Dodd, The Meaning of Paul for Today (New York, 1952), 25. Helmut Koester, Einfiihrung in das Neue Testament (Berlin, 1980), 366-368. Moses Hadas, Hellenistic Culture (New York, 1959), 143-145. Paul Wendland, Die hellenistisch- romische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zum Judentum und Christentum (Tabingen, 1972), 92-93.

2 For a popular discussion of this see S. Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius (London, 1904), 334-383.

60

ed on the large numbers of Cynics3 and that many of these public figures had somewhat less than noble motives. Dio Chrysostom says that "These Cynics, posting themselves at street corners, in alleyways, and at temple gates, pass round the hat and play upon the credulity of lads and sailors and crowds of that sort, stringing together rough jokes and much tittle-tattle and that low bandage that smacks of the market place. "4 4 We also know of public "evangelists" who were much more dignified and noble figures.5 Some Stoics also went public with their message. One can add to this the ranks of sophists and rhetoricians who commonly spoke in theaters and other public places. It has seemed plausible to many that the early Christian preachers should have very naturally added their gospel to this competition of words so familiar to the public life of the ancient city.

The Christian missionary who is most often identified with this picture of the marketplace preacher is Paul.' 7 He, above all, understood himself to be the preacher of the gospel to the Gentiles. But in what physical and social circumstances did this activity characteristically take place? The answer most often given is that Paul resembled the sophists or Cynics who were common sights in the public places of the great cities of the empire." But to gain any picture at all of the concrete circumstances of Paul's preaching activity from his letters is extremely difficult, and the basis for understanding Paul as one of these public preachers is in fact quite feeble.

One source for this picture of Paul's preaching activity is the Acts of the Apostles. Above all, it has been the picture of Paul, the great orator in Athens from Acts 17 that has been influential There Paul gives not only his eloquent speech to or on the Areopagus, but also discourses every day in the market place with those who happen to

3 Dio Chrysostom, Or 32.9; 72.4; Lucian, Double Indictment 6; Runaways 3 ff. ; Philo, De Plant. 151. 4 Or. 32.9 cf Lucian, Double Indictment, 6-11.

5 See Lucian, Demonax. There is the highly respected Demetrius who flourished in Rome under Nero. See also Horace's account of Stertinius, Satires 2.3.

6 For example, see Epictetus, Diss. 2.12.17 and Horace, Satires 2.3. 1 See n. 1 above. 8 For Paul as sophist, A. E. Judge, "The Early Christians as a Scholastic Com-

munity : Part II," Journal of Religious History I (1960-1961), 125-137. Judge broadens the concept of sophist to include some philosophers. 9 See, for example, the comments by Georgi in n. 1 above.

61

be there (17:17). Luke narrates the scene so that there is a subtle comparison with Socrates: The figure conversing in the agora of Athens, accused of preaching new or foreign divinities, layed hold of by his competitors and forced to defend his teachings before the Athenian court.

In addition to the well-known problems of generalizing from Acts apart from Paul's letters is the fact that this picture of Paul the public orator is not even typical of Acts. The only other place where Paul speaks publicly or in a way that might be analogous to the Cynic or sophist is in 14:8, where a crippled man hears Paul speak- ing and is saved by his faith. Luke relates that when the crowds saw this incident they tried to sacrifice to Barnabas and Paul as Zeus and Hermes. Aside from this, virtually all of Paul's preaching is done in synagogues, where he regularly converts large numbers of both Jews and Gentiles.l Luke clearly has a special point to make in this regard, not only about the gospel being "to the Jew first" but also that the early church was composed of pious Jews along with God-fearing Gentiles who were seeking after the one God and who lived alongside God's people, Israel. Thus, the synagogue is the prototype for the church made up of the two peoples.

Paul's statement in Acts 20:20 to the Ephesian Elders, "I did not shrink from announcing and teaching to you both in public" and from house to house," might seem to belie this Lukan picture of Paul. Preaching "in public" might seem to mean acting like an itinerant Cynic until one realizes that Luke is referring to Paul's use of the aXoX' of Tyrannus for his preaching.l2 This happened after Paul had been driven from the synagogue. Luke comments that during this two-year tenure in the JxoXfi of Tyrannus, all the residents of Asia, both Jews and Greeks, heard the word (19: 10). Here Paul might appear as a philosopher but not as a Cynic. The Cynics strongly opposed the kind of philosophy which, as they saw it, was conducted inside schools instead of outside in the agon of life. 13

10 Jacob Jervell, Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis, 1972), 41-74, esp. 61 ff. For Luke's use of "in public" see 16:37 and 18:28.

'2 Acts 19:9. Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia 1965), 560-561.

'3 For typical Cynic views see Epistles of Socrates (ed. Malherbe), 219.10-20; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32.8; Epictetus, Diss. 3.22, 14, 45 ff. ,

62

If Luke knew that Paul preached his message from market to market and street to street like a Cynic, he would have had good reasons for not making mention of the fact. Idealized Cynics of the past might have been revered by the populace, but to their contem- poraries in the empire Cynics were more likely to be thought of as foul-smelling frauds, I' Moreover, Luke was anxious to show that the Christian religion was not a new superstition or a politically subversive movement, 15 and it was in the period when the author of Luke-Acts was writing that Cynic boldness of speech was viewed as a threat to the imperial order. The Cynic, Demetrius, for example, brought the ire of three different emperors down on himself and like-minded Stoics and Cynics for his rather blatantly anti- monarchial denunciations under Gaius, Nero and Vespasian. 16

In sum, Luke does not provide any basis for understanding Paul's typical preaching activity according to the picture which we have been examining. Luke may have had reasons for suppressing such evidence, and he certainly has other agenda, such as the rela- tion of Gentiles to the Synagogue, but he does not give us reasons for believing that Paul was a Christian version of a street-corner philosopher.

The second foundation for this view of Paul's preaching activity has been Paul's use of the style of the diatribe in his letters. The thesis of Rudolf Bultmann's dissertation was that since the diatribe was the form of the philosophical preaching of the Cynics and Stoics, Paul's use of the style in his letters reflected the oral style of his own missionary preaching. 17 Bultmann depended on a view of the diatribe which went back to U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, who described the diatribe as the Gattung of the Wanderprediger and saw its line of development as going down to the modern sermon. I"

'4 See, for example, Seneca, Ep. 5.1; 29.1; Martial 4.5.3; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 34.2; 32.9; Athenaeus, Dein. 3.113; Petronius, Sat. 14; Alciphron, Or. 3.55.

'S Argued among others by H. J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (London, 1927), 299-316.

'6 Margarethe Billerbeck, Der Kyniker Demetrius (Philos. Antiqua 36; Leiden, 1980). Ramsay MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order (Cambridge, Mass., 1966), 46-94.

" Der Stil der Paulinischen Predigt und die Kynisch-Stoische Diatribe (FRLANT; Got- tingen, 1910). 18

"Der Kynische Prediger Teles," Antigonos von Karystos (Philo!' Unters. 4; Berlin, 1881), 292-319.

63

Otto Hense and others tried to clarify and develop this view by picturing the diatribe as the chief form of "popular philosophical propaganda for the masses": It was the genre of philosophy for the common man in the street which Bion of Borysthenes had originated

In spite of the vividness of this scenario, our view of the diatribe must be modified in light of recent research. .20 Those authors whose works have been considered representative of the diatribe and whose style shows affinities with Paul's letters are not street-corner preachers or typical Cynics.2' In fact, the diatribes which have been preserved were not meant to be public orations or philosophy for the masses, but were designed for audiences of students in

philosophical schools and situations analogous to such schools. Paul's admittedly diatribe-like style, then, does not provide us with a reason for supposing that he was a Cynic-like street preacher. If

anything, the style suggests an audience of disciples, taught private- ly, and not occasional audiences of "those who happened to be present."22

What we are faced with is the fact that it will not be so easy to visualize the circumstances of Paul's preaching. Evidence for the

typical nature of this activity will have to come from references and allusions to Paul's social circumstances, missionary methods and self-understanding as a preacher in his letters. On occasion, it may prove that information in Acts can supplement this primary evidence. This meager evidence will then have to be interpreted in

light of a more nuanced account of similar preaching-like activities in the Greco-Roman world. What must be avoided is further ab- sorption of data to that protean sponge, the concept of the "divine man. "23 This scholarly syncretism must be reversed and a more subtle feel for the cultural meaning of various sorts of speaking activity must be developed.

'9 Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul's Letter to the Romans (SBL Diss. Ser. 57; Chico, CA, 1981). See 7-17 for the development of this understanding of the diatribe among scholars. 20 Ibid., 27-78. 175-184. 2' Ibid., 45-78. 22 Ibid., 175-184. 23 On the "Divine Man" concept in scholarly thought, see H. C. Kee, "Divine Man", Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Suppl. 243, and Carl R. Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism, (Missoula, MT, 1977).

64

II

We have been speaking of Paul's "preaching activity" and it is important to clarify what we mean by this expression. By "preaching activity" we mean that initial effort which led people to belief in Christ and the founding of churches. The principle feature of this activity was the speech of the apostle and the hearing of potential and recent converts. This "preaching" was an attempt to teach or persuade. We do not really know what form it took. The very use of the word "preaching" is problematic, since it has so many anachronistic connotations. What we are concerned with is not the content but the locus, form and social circumstances of this "preaching. " In other words, where did it take place, who heard it, what was their relationship to Paul, what was Paul's social role and manner of approach?

It is certain that Paul presented his message in synagogues in at least some of the cities which he visited. What we do not know is how customary his appearances were in the synagogue or what role and approach he took. Although an apostle to the Gentiles, he cer- tainly considered himself a Jew with the right to present his brand of Judaism. In II Cor. 11 :24 in the context of a peristasis catalogue which enumerates the hardships which he has incurred while

preaching the gospel, Paul says that five times he had received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. This was, of course, a customary punishment by the synagogue based on Deuteronomy 25:1-3. 26 This reaction could only have been caused by Paul's attempts to win Jews to belief in the crucified messiah. The infliction of this severe punishment five times reflects a certain persistance on Paul's part and probably the fact that Paul preached in synagogues on numerous occasions.

This text also shows that Paul continued to present himself as a

Jew and submit to the authority of the synagogue. Acts highlights this view with its emphasis on Paul's preaching in synagogues. As Acts would have it, Paul also obtained his initial contacts with the local Gentile communities by converting Gentile "god-fearers"

24 This is sometimes denied. W. Schmithals, Paulus undJakobus (FRLANT 85; G6ttingen, 1963). Cf. G. Bomkamm, "The Missionary Stance of Paul in I Cor. 9 and in Acts," Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. L. Keck & L. Martyn (Nashville, 1966), 199-202.

25 Romans 9:1-5; 11:1; I Cor. 9:19-23. 26 Josephus, Ant. 4.238, 248; Makkoth 3.10. Cf. Mt. 10:17.

65

from the synagogues. This certainly would have been a reasonable way to find an entry into the Greek population. 27 The problem is that we have virtually no evidence to confirm Luke's picture of regular populations of Gentile semi-Jews in the synagogues of the empire28 or that Paul took advantage of such a situation. Even though Paul's major mission was to Gentiles, the synagogue must be considered one locus, and perhaps an important one for his preaching where he by birth and heritage would have a recognized although often controversial status as a Jewish Christian. This is not insignificant because, contrary to what is often assumed, Paul would not always have had a status which would have given him a context for presenting his message in other social situations.

The other center of activity of which we have evidence from Paul's letters is the private home. The idea of the house church is well known and they are clearly the focus of community life in Paul's letters.29 Homes are important locales for Paul's preaching in Acts, although less important than synagogues.3 According to Luke, Paul would move his base of operation from the synagogue to private homes only after he had been ejected from the former

But was a private home a proper place for a teacher like Paul to

carry out his "preaching activity"? Would this have been con- sidered a legitimate and acceptable context for such activity? The answer to these questions is clearly yes. The private home was a center of intellectual activity and the customary place for many types of speakers and teachers to do their work. Occasional lec- tures, declamations and readings of various sorts of philosophical, rhetorical and literary works often took place in homes.32 Such ses- sions might be continued for two or three days." The speaker might

2' Henneke Gulzow, "Soziale Gegebenheiten der altkirchlichen Mission," Die Alten Kirche (Munich, 1974), 194 ff. 28 Heinz Bellen, "Zum Problem der Gottfrchtigen, " Jahrbuch frir Antike und Christentum 8-9 (1965-66), 171-176. 29 Abraham J. Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Baton Rouge & Lon- don, 1977), 61 ff. 3o Acts 20:20; 17:5; 18:7. 3' Acts 17:5; 18:7 and implied elsewhere. 32 Epictetus, Diss. 3.23.23; Seneca, Ep. 76.4; Pliny, Ep. 3.18; 5.3, 1-2, 11-12; 8:21.1 f; 9:34; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 77-78.34. A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford, 1966), 116, 251 and Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church (London, 1907), 91-92.

33 Pliny, Ep. 3.18.

66

use his own house or be invited to speak or teach in another home. These were private affairs and audiences came by invitation. There are not only references to personal invitations by word of mouth such as "come around today and hear me deliver a lecture in the house of Quadratus, "35 but also to the customary written in- vitations and programmes which were sent out to friends and ac- quaintances.36 It became a commonplace that the well-to-do liked to have philosophers seen hanging around their houses.37 Along with an invitation to speak or hear someone speak sometimes also went an invitation to a mea1.38 But the private home provided a teacher or speaker with much more than just a place to speak and hospitality.39 The patron or host could provide the speaker with an audience and a kind of social legitimation.

In addition to occasional teaching and speaking activity, the private home is also important for so-called "schools of higher education". The private house seems to have been the most popular place for philosophers and sophists to hold their classes.' While some of the schools such as the Academy and Lyceum in Athens had a kind of irregular institutional history as loose brother- hoods of scholars with a succession of scholiarchs, as John Lynch says, "most philosophers and rhetoricians in the imperial age taught as isolated individuals, often in their own homes, not in a community of other teachers or in an established institution."4'

34 Epictetus, Diss. 3.23.6, 23, 28, 35; 3.21.6. Pliny, Ep. 3.18. On invitations, see Hatch, Greek Ideas 92 and Sherwin-White, Letters of Pliny 116. For invitation by knocking on doors, see Synesius in Dio Chrysostom, ed. Dindorf, Vol. 2, 342. For messengers sent round to public places to announce a lecture see Philostratus, Vit. soph. 10. 590. 35 Epictetus, Diss. 3.23.23.

See n. 34 above. 3' For example, Dio Chrysostom, Or. 77-78.34; Lucian, Salaried Posts; Epictetus,

Diss. 4.1.177. 3? Pliny, Ep. 8.21.1 f; Philostratus, Vit. soph. 10.585. The philosophical sym-

posium was of course made famous by the literary symposia of Plato and Xenophon. 3s Private hospitality was important to travelling lecturers and itinerant teachers. Helga Rusche, Gastfreundschaft in der Verkndigung des Neuen Testaments und ihr Verhltnis zur Mission (Mnster, 1957). 4o John Lynch, Aristotle's School (Berkeley, 1972), 174-177. See, for example, Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 2.2; 7.13; Lucian, Nigrinus 27, Hermotimus 11; Epictetus, Diss. 3.23.23; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 77-78.34; Seneca, Ep. 76.4; Eunapius, Vit. philos. 469; Philostratus hit. soph. 2.21.604; Libanius, Or. 1.70.13; Historia Augusta 3.1. See Lynch for other examples. 41 Lynch, Ibid., 174.

67

The picture of the philosopher or sophist using his own house as a place for training, instruction, nurture and fellowship comes through in numerous incidental remarks and anecdotes. Lucian tells of the Stoic teacher who, upon becoming ill, hung a sign on his gate which read "No philosophy class today. "42 Seneca mentions his walks to the house of the philosopher Metronax to attend lec- tures.43 Aulus Gellius came to Athens in the mid-second century and attached himself to the platonist, Taurus. Gellius has left a col- orful portrait of students listening to lectures, arguing with their teacher, getting scolded and dining with one another, all at the house of Taurus." Marcus Aurelius was such a devout student of philosophy that even after he became a member of the imperial family he continued to attend classes in the humble house of his Stoic teacher, Apollonius of Chalcedon.45

Some schools not only met in homes but even took on a family or household atmosphere. The most famous examples are the Epicurean groups where not only male citizens but also slaves and women spent their time associating as friends and remembering the sayings of Epicurus in homes and private gardens.46 Plutarch turn- ed his household in Chaeronea into a philosophical school. There members of the household, relatives, neighbors and young men who came to study from many areas in Greece would listen to lec- tures, participate in discussions, read literature and share meals.4'

While the teaching of basic rhetoric to boys often took place in

public locations such as a gymnasium or even a street, the advanced training for declamation or the law courts usually seems to have occurred in the sophist's house. Most of the evidence comes from the period of the Second Sophistic and later. We hear much of these sophists as visiting lecturers and ambassadors, but the vast majority

42 Hermotimus 11. 43 Ep. 76.4; Cf. 93.1-4. 44 Noctes Atticae 2.2; 7.13; 17.8; 1.9.8-11; 1.26; 7.10. 45 Historia Augusta, Capitolinus, Life of Marcus Aurelius 3.1. 46 N. W. DeWitt, "Organization and Procedure in Epicurean Groups,"

Classical Philology 31 (1936), 205-11. See the corrections of DeWitt by M. Gigante, ' ' 'Philodme: Sur la libert de parole,'' in Actes du Tlllle Congrs Assoc. Guillaume Bud

(Paris, 1969), 169-217. 47 Esp. Soll. animal. which depicts a session at Plutarch's school. Also M. Schuster, Untersuchungen zu Plutarchs Dialog "De sollertia animalium" mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Lehrtdtigkelt Plutarchs. (Augsburg, 1917), R. H. Barrow, Plutarch and His Times (Bloomington, 1967) 18-19, D. A. Russell, Plutarch 13-14. 48 Lynch, Ibid., 174-175. Also Kennedy, n. 49 below.

68

of them spent most of their time teaching young men the art of rhetorical declamation or forensic rhetoric as private teachers. Philostratus gives a list of the patria or house rules of the school of Proclus. He also tells us that the sophist had a library in his house for the use of his students.5 Himerius at first taught in public places, but wisely withdrew to his house when he was stabbed by the students of a rival." Libanius first taught in his apartment when he came to Antioch but later moved to a shop which he rented from a merchant

It is no accident that patrons, households and house churches are so prominent in the letters of Paul the missionary.53 As a place and social context for preaching the gospel, the private house offered certain advantages over preaching in synagogues and public places. The problems associated with preaching the crucified Christ in synagogues are obvious and as we shall argue below, speaking in public places often required things which Paul did not possess or would find difficult to obtain, such as an invitation, a sponsor, an audience and credentials as a certain type of speaker corresponding to a specific genre of speaking event. Above all, speakers needed some type of social status or a recognized role. An invitation to teach in someone's house would provide Paul with all of these things and give his preaching activity a kind of stability and security which the explosive situation of the synagogue or the competition of public speaking could not offer.

When Paul says "I baptized the household of Stephanus," it is probably correct to assume that the preaching which led up to these baptisms occurred not in a marketplace or a gymnasium, but in someone's house. When Paul writes to Rome 55 he mentions that Gaius is his host and also of the whole church (Rom. 16:23). Gerd

49 George Kennedy, "The Sophists as Declaimers," Approaches to the Second Sophistic, ed. G. W. Bowersock (University Park, Pennsylvania, 1974), 17-22.

so vit. soph. 2.21.604. 5' Himerius, Or. 22. 52 Or. 1.70.13. s3 For households and patrons see E. A. Judge, "The Early Christians as a

Scholastic Community, " Journal of Religious History 1 ( 1 960-6 1 ) , and the corrections and qualifications by A. J. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 45 ff. For the importance of households and hospitality to early missionaries see Malherbe, Ibid., 60-91. 54 I Cor. 1:16. Note that in Luke's descriptions of "households" being con- verted that they are taught and converted in connection with private homes, either their own or someone else's: Acts 10:1 ff.; 16:14 ff.; 18:8 ff., but see 16:14 ff. where Paul enters Lydia's house only after baptizing her household.

69

Theissen has argued convincingly that Gaius is to be understood as a wealthy patron with a large house.56 If one imagines Paul as the central figure in teaching activity which involved the household of Gaius, believers from other households, Paul's travelling associates and fellow workers and invited outsiders, one has a situation which is in many ways remarkably like the school in the home of Plutarch in Chaeronea.5'

That non-believers were invited into homes even for the worship of the assembled church is clear. In I Cor. 14 Paul shows a special concern for the impression that the less rational aspects of the assembly would have on outsiders.58 There he says that when an unbeliever or an enters the assembly, the outsider will think that those in the assembly are possessed by cultic frenzy if he hears them speaking in tongues.59 On the other hand, if they are prophe- sying (apparently a type of proclamation)60 the will be con- victed and turn to God. Epictetus also worries about how to reach outsiders.61 He says that the philosopher usually becomes impatient and turns the away with his harsh language. What the philosopher ought to do is to engage the in dialogue, as did Socrates, so that the person might be led to convict himself and to know his need for philosophy. Elsewhere, Epictetus describes this Socratic method with the term liYXE.LV,62 the term which Paul uses for what should be the proper effect on the The point is not that the Corinthian service and Epictetus' philosophical school are analogous, but that the concerns of Paul the missionary teacher run parallel to those of the Stoic teacher.

55 For the definitive argument that Romans 16 was part of Paul's original letter to Rome, see Harry Gamble, The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids, 1977). Also Karl Donfried, "A Short Note on Romans 16," in The Romans Debate (Minneapolis, 1977). 56

"Soziale Schichtung in der Korinthischen Gemeinde: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie des hellenistischen Urchristentums," Zeitschrift fir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 65 (1974), 232-72. 5' Differences, such as that students came to Plutarch from wide areas in Greece because of his reputation, are obvious. Plutarch also taught in his own home. But the heterogeneous and domestic nature of both teaching situations is apparent.

58 I Cor. 14:20-25. 59 On Mania as cultic frenzy: Hans Conzelmann, A Commentary on the First Epistle

to the Corinthians (Philadelphia, 1975), 243, 205 and C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York, 1968), 326.

so Cf. I Cor. 14:1-5. 6' Epictetus, Diss. 2.12. 62 Epictetus, Diss. 2.26, 4-7; 3.21.19; 3.23.23-38.

70

Paul would like to see the particularly charismatic and "irrational" Corinthian church bring their assemblies more in line with his own goals of evangelistic persuasion. Finally, it is clear that the common assembly is not the main locus for Paul's preaching. From the

descriptions of worship in I Cor. it is anachronistic to think of a sermon in the common assemblies.63

Although Acts spotlights Paul's preaching in the synagogues and at the Areopagus, there are less highlighted traditions which sug- gest that private houses were of great importance for his

preaching.64 When Paul goes to Corinth he stays with Aquila and Priscilla and preaches in the synagogue on the Sabbath.65 When Paul is ejected from the synagogue, he moves his preaching activity to the house of Titius Justus. Luke seems to imply that Paul's teaching there lasted for 18 months. 66 In his speech to the Ephesian elders, Paul summarizes his work at Ephesus by saying that he taught in public, that is the schole of Tyrannus, 67 and from house to house.68 Thus, at least according to Luke's account, the house ap- pears as the characteristic place for Paul's teaching activity during his long stays in Ephesus and Corinth aside from the peculiar situa- tion of the schole of Tyrannus.

The evidence then from Paul's letters which is supported by Acts when one de-emphasizes Luke's special concerns, shows that the

private home was most likely the center of Paul's preaching activi- ty. In light of the contemporary practises of sophists and

philosophers, this use of the house is not unusual, but rather an

accepted and recognized way of doing such things. Although Paul taught in private homes, he refused to forfeit his

independence (I Cor. 9:15-19) or to become open to the charge of merchandizing the word of God (II Cor. 2:17) by joining the households of well-to-do believers and depending on them for sup- port. Instead, Paul supported himself by working with his hands.

s3 The numerous attempts to show that "preaching" or the "sermon" was a part of congregational worship are pathetic examples of special pleading. No such evidence exists for Paul's churches. See, for example, Gerhard Delling, Worship in the New Testament (Philadelphia, 1962), 103. 64 In addition to the passages cited in the text, see Acts 16:5, cf. 31; 17:5-6 and 28 :16 f.

ss Acts chp. 18. 66 18.11. 67 19:3. See Haenchen, Acts, 560-561. 68 2:20.

71

As Ronald Hock has shown, this made the status problem even more acute and apparently shocked some in the Corinthian church who expected Paul to act like philosophers who took up salaried

posts in well-to-do households.

In other words, Paul's weak appearance was due in part to his plying a trade. In the social world of a city like Corinth, Paul would have been a weak figure, without power, prestige and privilege. We recall the shoemaker Micyllus, depicted by Lu- cian as penniless and powerless-poor, hungry, wearing an unsightly cloak, granted no status, and victimized. To those of wealth and power, the appearance

of the artisan was that befitting a slave (ouo1tpE1ti). 69 This status problem did not make Paul a likely candidate for

most forms of public speaking. On the other hand, the importance of private residences for his teaching activity was crucial. Paul needed a platform, a legitimate context apart from the public arena.

In Christian sources for the second century we also do not hear of out-of-door preaching. Perhaps even more significantly, we do not find opponents of Christianity alluding to public preaching. Celsus might seem to provide an exception when he accuses Christians of displaying their trickery among boys, slaves and fools in the market-places instead of before assemblies of intelligent men.' In his reply, Origen first protests that Cynics converse with whomever they meet in public and Celsus doesn't criticize them for going to all and not just the wise. Then Origen argues that in fact Christians are not indiscriminate in their evangelistic activity as are the Cynics who speak to anyone who will listen. The Christians, Origen says, first test potential converts to see if they are serious and then in- struct them privately." Celsus' point is not that Christians are like Cynics but that they show up wherever the foolish gather, such as in the market-place. Of course, it is undeniable that the Christians were often compared to Cynics and that there were some connec- tions between the two groups.'2 Peregrinus Proteus, for example, was both a Cynic and a Christian and Justin Martyr wore the

69 Ronald Hock, The Social Context of Paul's Ministry (Philadelphia, 1980), 50-65. 70 Origen, Contra Celsum 3.50-51. Celsus then apparently turned to the other side of the coin, i.e. Christians teaching the foolish privately in houses. See 55.

" Ibid., 50-52. 72 D. R. Dudley, A History of Cynicism (London, 1937), 172 ff. and N. Hyldahl, Philosophie und Christentum (Copenhagen, 1962). See esp. the generalizing statements of Aelius Aristides, Or. 46 (Dindorf, 2.394 f.) and P. de Labriolle, La Raction paienne (Paris, 1934), 79-87.

72

Cynic garb.'3 One must not, however, facilely assume from this that public preaching was a typical Christian practise.

The pattern of the individual preacher instructing and converting students privately and independently of any church institution is prominent in the second century. Justin Martyr, Tatian, Pan- taenus, Clement of Alexandria and others operated such schools.'4 These were no more formal or institutional than Paul's teaching ac- tivity in Corinth or Ephesus.

Although Justin moved about the eastern part of the empire quite widely, we only have significant information about his teaching ac- tivity in Rome toward the end of his career. The Acts of Justin depicts the situation accurately when Justin says, "I live above one Martinus, at the Timiotinian Bath and if anyone wished to come to me, I communicated to him the doctrines of truth. 1115 Inquirers and students came to Justin's quarters for private instruction. He did not go into the streets or teach in a church school under the rule of church officials. The picture of Justin's teaching activity has been distorted by uncritical acceptance of Eusebius' comments about Justin's public debates with the Cynic philosopher Crescens. Eusebius has misread statements about Crescens in Justin's Second Apology and in Tatian's Address to the Greeks. These texts do not describe a public debate. 16 There is no evidence that Justin was a street-corner philosopher.

Another kind of distortion takes place when writers speak of Pan- taenus and Clement as heads of the "Catechetical School of Alex- andria. "77 Rather, these two conducted private Christian schools

73 On Peregrinus and Justin see n. 72. On Justin's garb see Dial. 1.2; 9.2; Eusebius, H. E. 4.11.8 and Jerome, Illustrious Men 23.

On the Alexandrians, M. Bardy, "Aux origines de l'Ecole d'Alexandrie, Vivre et Penser," Revue biblique 2nd ser. 85 ff.; M. Hornschuh, "Das Leben Origines und die Entstehung der alexandrinischen Schule," Zeitschrift fiir Kir- chengeschichte 71 (1960), 1-25, 193-214; J. Danilou, Origen 9-20. For such schools and their practises see W. Boussett, Jdisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom (FRLANT 23; G6ttingen, 1915) 1-7 and A. J. Festugiere, "Le Logos hermetique d'enseignement," Revue des Etudes Grecques 55 (1942), 77-108. On Justin see Cyril Richardson, Early Christian Fathers (New York, 1970), 227-231. On Tatian's teaching activity, Orat. 26 (42) and Eusebius H. E. 5.13. On Valentinus & Theodas, Clement Strom. 7.17.106.

'S H. Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford, 1972). '6 The critical correction to Eusebius' interpretation is A. J. Malherbe "Justin

and Crescens", Christian Teaching: Studies in Honor of Le Moine G. Lewis (Abilene, Texas, 1981), 312-327.

" J. L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought (Nashville, 1970), 194.

73

modelled after the typical philosophical school with the individual teacher informally attracting students.'$ Origen was asked by the bishop Demetrius to provide elementary instruction to candidates for baptism. This might properly be called a kind of catechetical school. Origen later turned this school over to Heraclas and open- ed his own private school of Christian philosophy as Pantaenus and Clement had done before him. Paul was more itinerant than these teachers, and the subject matter would have been different in the second century, but the basic form of private, non-institutionalized instruction is the same and corresponds to the schools of sophists and philosophers.

The controversy and competition between these little indepen- dent groups of disciples gathered around a philosopher is well known. Very early another sort of tension existed between churches which were beginning to develop local organization and indepen- dent teachers. The teacher with his students who themselves sometimes became teachers naturally formed a cxi.'pEcn,80 a sect or school within the church. This conflict became acute in the second century when bishops claimed the authority to determine which teachers and schools were in accord with the apostolic tradition and which were not. Valentinus, for example, and the teachers he had taught were ranked on one side and Justin Martyr and most of his students on the other. Tatian, although a student of Justin's, was judged to have started a new CXi.'PEcrt. The point is that these later problems are inherent in the form of teaching activity which we can see as early as Paul. A problem at Corinth seems to have been that some viewed Paul, Apollos and other missionaries as independent, competing teachers (I Cor. 1:10-4:20). The earliest Christian teachers did not organize themselves into academies as did the Rab- bis and reach a consensus, but usually followed the pattern of the Greek philosophical or rhetorical teacher.

III

If there is virtually no positive evidence that Paul preached publicly we may still ask if there is not some intrinsic probability

78 See n. 74 above. '9 Eusebius, H. E. 6.3, 1-8. 11 Marcel Simon, "From Greek Hairesis to Christian Heresy," Early Christian

Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition: In Honor of Robert M. Grant, ed. W. Schoedel & R. L. Wilken (Paris, 1979), 101-134.

74

based on ancient practise that he did so. This is certainly what

many have assumed. A. E. Judge has gone so far as to call Paul a sophist and to compare him not only to Cynics but also to such eminents as Aelius Aristides and Dio Chrysostom.81 Paul, he says, fits into the class of touring lecturers. He adapted the conventions of these sophists and would have been classed as one by contem- porary observers. The way to test Judge's theory is not to again broaden the concept of sophist or include Paul within the all-

encompassing category of divine-man82 but to make distinctions and observe nuances. What were the distinctions and criteria of

judgment which the ancient observer would make? Who lectured publicly and why?

It is important not to read the anonymity and homogenization of the modern city back into antiquity. Status, appearance, reputation and role were all important in the ancient city. As Ramsay Mac- Mullen says, "What most magnified honor, however, was the degree to which city life was lived publicly, in the open. Thus, whatever one was or did, everybody knew at once. " 83 This was a culture where people believed that you could determine another's character, class and ethnic origins not only from dress and speech but also from such things as posture, the way one walked, how one sneezed and whether one scratched one's head or not. Paul was a

Jew and a leather-worker.85 It is doubtful that he could have over- come the stigma of these roles even if he had sought to do so.86 This was Paul's public status.

Who spoke publicly? Politicians and sophists spoke before coun- cils and sometimes to the general population." Rhetoricians pled cases in courts. Philosophers to various degrees had a public presence. City officials invited well-known sophists to speak in

"Early Christians as a Scholastic Community," 127. s2 Judge's tendency is much like that of scholars who use the divine man con-

cept. By lumping together Sophists like Aristides, Cynics and Apollonius of Tyana he has a class which is so broad and heterogeneous that almost any characteristic can be ascribed to it. On the divine man concept see n. 23 above.

Roman Social Relations (New Haven, 1974), 62. 84 Dio Chrysostom, Or. 31.162; 33.52-55; 70:1-8; 72.1-2. See MacMullen, Ibid., 138-141 for the "Lexicon of Snobbery."

$5 On Paul's trade see Hock, Social Context, esp. 1-49. 86 The stigmas of being Jewish are well known. On the stigmas of working with

one's hands see Hock, Ibid. 20 ff. 11 See the instructive distinctions which Dio makes in Or. 21.1 ff.

75

theaters or other public places in order to entertain the crowds. 88 Not just any rhetorician got such an invitation. One normally had to have a name first earned in the councils, courts or schools of rhetoric.89 The sophists of the Second Sophistic were virtually all men of wealth and high social position. Even their predecessors, the rhetors of the late Republic and early Empire, were usually people of social and political influence.9 Occasionally we hear of people with reputations as philosophers getting official invitations to speak but these turn out to be people like Plutarch and Dio Chrysostom, who were also trained in higher rhetoric and who came from aristocratic backgrounds and were active in public affairs. This does not mean that people had trouble distinguishing philosophers from sophists: This was usually not the case.9' Dio himself says that when he gave up sophistic rhetoric he grew long hair, a beard and wore a simple cloak and then people immediately began to treat him as a philosopher.92 In his 72 discourse he describes how each trade, profession, class and nationality has its own peculiar dress, but that only the attire of the philosopher brings instant response.93 Philosophers attract crowds by appearance alone. Philostratus illustrates the change of Aristocles from a philosopher to a sophist by describing how he went from the ranks of the ill clothed to the best dressed.94 Indeed, showy costume and elaborate hairdo were part of the sophist's act and badge of identity.95

If one had no special status or invitation the other way one might speak in public was to force oneself on the attention of others. This, of course, was the Cynic method. One might also try to do this at festivals, games or even in the marketplace, where there was sometimes a kind of free-for-all circus atmosphere. Dio remembers

88 Pliny, Ep. 5.3.11; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 13.12, 31; Kennedy, "Sophists as Declaimers," 17. 89 Kennedy, Ibid. 17; G. W. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Ox- ford, 1969), esp. 30-88. 9 Bowersock, Ibid., 2. ff., 43-44. 91 But see G. R. Stanton, "Sophists and Philosophers: Problems of Classifica- tion," American Journal of Philology 94 (1973), 350-364. 9? See Or. 13 for Dio's "conversion." Dio makes it clear how crucial dress and life-styles were for the distinctions between the two. See Or. 12.15; 35.2; 72.16, and especially 70:7-9. 93 Or. 72.16.

94 Vit. soph. 2.2.568. 95 For example, Philostratus, Vit. soph. 2.10.587; Epictetus, Diss. 3.1.1 ff.; Hatch, Greek Ideas, 94.

76

walking through the Hippodrome at Olympia and seeing in a cer- tain area, "one playing the flute, another dancing, another doing a juggler's trick, another telling some story or myth.' '96 According to Lucian, Peregrinus joined into a similar competition for attention when he burned himself at Olympla.91 It is difficult to imagine Paul entering the gospel into such a competition.

The schools of philosophy took various positions on what relation the philosopher's speech ought to have to the public and everyday life of the city. For most of the schools, it was a matter of how you interpreted the fact that Socrates had taught by association in everyday life and not privately or through an institution. On one extreme the Cynics claimed that this public teaching by association was the essence of the Socratic heritage.98 On the other end of the spectrum stood the non-Socratic Pythagoreans and Epicureans who believed that the philosophical life required a determined privacy and seclusion.99 These two removed themselves from the center of city life and formed communities apart which were unlike the loose association of individuals in the other schools. Epicurus said that the wise man, "will found a school, but not in such a manner as to draw the crowd after him; and will give lectures in public but only by request."'oo The exclusiveness, oaths, dietary rules and private initiations of the Pythagoreans and Epicureans contrast with other sects who were interested in founding schools in order to draw crowds after them.101

Next on the scale are the Academy and Lyceum in Athens and their emulators elsewhere.'2 These two met in public places, in state-owned gymnasia. The public could observe what went on in these schools as outsiders. To be an insider took leisure, and leisure

96 Or. 20.10. See also Or. 8.9 where sophists and their students argue, writers read their works, jugglers and fortune-tellers do their tricks outside of Poseiden's temple. Also, Epistles of Diogenes (ed. Malherbe) 160. 5-20. Note the gimmick of the wooden chest with models of the heavens which the philosopher uses to attract at- tention.

97 Peregrinus 20 ff. 98 In Epistle of Socrates (ed. Malherbe), 218.10-20, a Cynic author puts Cynic

beliefs about public teaching in the mouth of Socrates. For the Cynic slogan "to do all things in public" see Diogenes Laertius, 6.69. 99 See n. 46 above. Also, Lynch, Aristotle's School 78, 120 and H. Thesleff, An In- troduction to the Pythagorean Writings of the Hellenistic Period (Abo, Finland, 1 96 1 ) . 100 Diogenes Laertius, 10.120.

'o' Lynch, Aristotle's School, 78. Lynch, Ibid. 30 ff.

77

required independent wealth and commitment. 103 Zeno chose the famous painted Stoa 104 for his school. Again, this reflected convic- tions about the philosophers' relation to the public. The Stoa was more open to the life of the city than the more secluded suburban Lyceum and Academy, and reflects the Cynic heritage of the Stoics. Diogenes had kept his jar at one end of the painted Stoa, and Crates and Hipparchia slept there.'o5 In Cynic fashion the Stoa was open to the whole life of the city, but unlike Cynic practise it was a fixed location. It was, after all, an open colonnade facing out on the cen- tral agora of the city. The Stoics wanted to draw crowds and did. We hear of the beggars, the young aristocrats, the sword swallowers and numerous others taking their walks through the Porch. 106 A fisherman who is hawking his catch listens to one of the philosophers there. 17 It is clear that if Paul had preached there, all the city would have soon known about him and his strange message.

In the eastern part of the empire it was the gymnasium which was the most important place for public speakers, although other state- owned buildings were also used.108 The architect Vitruvius includes a large exedra with seats for speakers and auditors in his plan for the typical Greek gymnasium.'9 Excavations at Pergamum, Ephesus and elsewhere have revealed auditoriums with classroom- like seating arrangements. "0 Besides schools of rhetoric and philosophy,'" one reads of a great array of visiting lecturers in the inscriptions: Bombas from Alexandria, Troas lecturing in

103 Ibid., 83. '04 R. E. Wycherely, "The Painted Stoa," Phoenix 7 (1953), 20-35. 101 Varro's Menippean Satires, frag. 165, ed. Bucheler, p. 179. Apuleius, Florida,

14. cf. Diogenes Laertius 6.96. 106 Wycherely, "Painted Stoa," 31-33. 107 Alciphron, Ep. 1.3.2. 108 Clarence A. Forbes, "Expanded Uses of the Greek Gymnasium," Classical Philology 40 (1945), 32-42. Lynch, Aristotle's School, 57 ff.

ios 5,11. "o Pergamum: Dorpfeld, Ath. Mitt. 33 (1908), 334-336; Ephesus: Keil, Jahresh.,

28 (1933), 9 ff. Philippi: Lemerle, BCH 61 (1937), 101 f.; Chios: IG Rom 4.1703. See The Oxford Classical Dictionary for standard abbreviations for inscriptions.

" Cicero, De orat. 2.5.21. "Gymnasia were invented many centuries before philosophers began to babble in them; and even in our day, although philosophers occupy all the gymnasia, yet their auditors are more eager to hear the gong than the sage. As soon as the gong sounds, though the philosopher be in the midst of a discourse descanting on matters of the greatest weight and import, they all aban- don him to go and take an oil-rub."

78

Larissa,l'2 an Athenian Homeric scholar,l'3 a physician giving medical lectures,114 a musician who taught in the gymnasium of Delos,1'5 a Roman astronomer 116 and so on. These people are always experts in some field recognized as legitimate scholarship by classical standards.

The gymnasiarch was responsible for receiving these speakers and had the obligation to expel any who caused trouble or were considered to be a bad influence on the young men of the city. "' 7

Prodicus of Ceos was thrown out by a gymnasiarch for "uttering doctrines not suitable for the young. "118 What would a gym- nasiarch think of Paul teaching that the good citizens ought to "turn to God from idols, to serve a living and true God."?"9 In- deed, what would Hermes and Heracles, whose statues and altars typically graced the interior of the gymnasium, think of Paul? 12 If Paul would be welcome neither in gymnasium nor synagogue, then we are left with the question of the open-air style preaching of the Cynics.

The Cynic by the command of God lived a style of life set apart from the normal citizen. 12 He was to have no house.'22 He was to bear the hardships of living out of doors and he was sent by Zeus to communicate a message to men. The Cynic did not cultivate the captive audience of a school or lecture hall or seek sponsorship from a gymnasiarch or city official.' The Cynic typically tried to force his attention upon people either by wit or the sharpness of his attack. Seneca tells Lucilius that ` `one must not talk to a man unless he is willing to listen. That is why it is often doubted whether Diogenes and the other Cynics, who employed undiscriminating

'12 BCH 59 (1935), 55 f. See Forbes, "Greek Gymnasium," 35. " jG 12, 9, 235 ( 1 st century BC), cf. 234 concerning the lectures of a rhetor.

Wilhelm, Neue Beitr. 4.54 f. "5 s jnscr. Dilos, 1502. 116 SIG3, 771.

Lynch, Aristotle's School, 130-132. Diogenes Laertius 6.90; Epistles of Diogenes (ed. Malherbe), 144.25 ff. and n. 118 below.

' Is Ps. Plato, Eryxias, 399a-b. I Thess. 1:9.

121 Forbes, "Greek Gymnasium," 42 cf. 39 on sacrifices in gymnasia. '2' Epictetus, Diss. 3.22; Epistles of Socrates and the Socratics (ed. Malherbe),

218.10; 222.5 ff. 122 Epictetus, Diss. 3.22.14-16, 66; 4.8.31; 4.11.23. 123 See n. 122 and compare Dio's Cynic judgment on philosophers who stay in- doors or conduct schools, Or. 32.8. Abraham J. Malherbe, "Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background to I Thess. 2", Novum Testamentum 12 (1970), 205-206.

79

freedom of speech and offered advice to anyone who came in their way, ought to have pursued such a plan. "' 24

In the modern literature on Cynicism one constantly hears talk of Cynic "preaching" and Cynic "sermons" as if the subject were the puritan minister before his congregation, but there is rarely much about what this "preaching" was really like. The actual examples of preaching by Cynics or Stoics who took up Cynic methods are not lectures or discourses before crowds, but usually discussions with an individual whom the Cynic has accosted. It is also often a kind of hit-and-run approach. You grab hold of some unfortunate passerby, lambast him for his vices, and then let him flee. The approach, however, could be more gentle. Horace depicts how the Stoic Stertinius saved the unfortunate Damasippus from suicide through a lengthy dialogue with him on the paradox, "all men

except the wise are mad. " '25 Here the Cynics thought themselves to be copying Socrates' method of critical examination through dialogue. 126 Epictetus explains that he used to engage in such public examination before he became a teacher.' He comments that such activity is no longer safe to practise, especially in Rome. After all, one must not conduct this examination in a corner, but instead make an example of someone. The example Epictetus gives is of questioning a rich person of consular rank. The probable outcome is a blow on the head from the fist of the rich man. The Cynic Demetrius nearly lost his life using such tactics in Rome.128 Even the gentle Demonax indulged in this sort of sharp repartee.129 Epictetus has the person who wants to reduce Cynicism to the superficial stereotype say "... and I shall begin to walk around and beg from those I meet, and revile them; and if I see someone who is getting rid of superfluous hair by the aid of pitch-plasters, or has a fancy cut to his hair, or is strolling about in scarlet clothes, I will come down hard on him."'3o This sort of confrontation with individuals in public is typical Cynic preaching.'3' 1 The moral

Iz4 Seneca, Ep. 29.2. ' 2 Satires 2.3.

Epictetus, Diss. 2.12. 121 Diss. 2.12.17-25. 128 Epictetus, Diss. 1.25.22; Suetonius, Vesp. 12; Dio Cassius 66.13.

Lucian, Demonax 16-21. 130 Diss. 3.22.10-12, cf. 50. '3' Also for Cynic "preaching" see Lucian, Philosophers for Sale 10 cf. 1 l; Double

Indictment, 6, 11; Peregrinus, 6assim; Dio Cassius 66.15; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 8.9; 77-78.38; Epictetus, Diss. 4.8.34 cf. 3.22.50; Epistles of Diogenes (ed. Malherbe) 160.5 f.

80

discourses of Dio Chrysostom before large public audiences where Dio had been invited to speak are not.

It is very difficult to conceive of Paul teaching the gospel through such methods or to think of him forcing himself on strangers. Even if Paul somehow looked like a Cynic, his purpose was different. The hit-and-run tactics of the Cynic do not fit. Paul sought not to challenge individuals to give up vice, but preached in order to form a community. A kind of enduring student-teacher relationship was necessary.'32 Paul tried to maintain this relationship as teacher and spiritual guide in his absence through his letters.

On the other hand, there are certain aspects of the Cynic approach which do fit Paul's situation. He has no ideology about teaching privately. A debate in an agora is not inconceivable on occasion, although that could not have been his basic approach to missionary work. Some Cynics did their teaching in connection with a trade and made working with their hands an aspect of their self-understanding. Ronald Hock has masterfully shown how Paul similarly associates working with his apostleship.'33 Paul then like certain Cynics may have taught while he worked.'34 Even more im- portantly, Paul agrees with the Cynics in believing that his message and the conduct of his everyday life must cohere and illustrate one another.'35 This means that according to Paul's own self- understanding, his preaching activity could not be somehow confin- ed to a school only and separated from his other activity. The true Cynic taught not by word only but by his whole life. Paul also presents his life and work as a model and example of his message. Paul's hardship lists which follow Cynic patterns are clear testimony to this.'36 "But we have this treasure in earthen vessels to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not for- saken ; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in

132 See Paul's description of his preaching activity I Thess. 2:1-12. '33 Social Context, 26-65. '34 Ibid., 52-59. 135 See for example, Epictetus, Diss. 3.22.45 ff. cf. 3.4.5; Dio Chrysostom, Or.

70.6; Lucian, Peregrinus 19, Demonax 3 ; Letters of Crates (ed. Malherbe) 20 and 21. R. Helm, Lucian und Menipp (Leipzig, 1906), 40 ff.

'36 I Cor. 4:8-13; II Cor. 4:8-9; 6:3-10; 11:23-29; 12:10. H. D. Betz, DerApostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition (Tbingen, 1972). See the modifications of Betz by Hock, Social Context 59-65.

81

our bodies."13' In other lists he mentions persecution, slander, homelessness and "working with his hands. " 138 Paul's account of how he preached the gospel to the Thessalonians makes mention of his struggle (aYwv) and how he worked with his hands.'39 Thus, although Paul probably did not wear the Cynic costume and did not employ typical patterns of so-called Cynic preaching, he is like them and unlike other philosophical schools in stressing the con- tinuity between his preaching activity and everyday life. Paul prob- ably did use the opportunities of work and travel to make contacts and teach people.

What may we then conclude about the circumstances of Paul's preaching activity? First, Paul used the synagogue on numerous occasions, although this often led to conflict and could not be a per- manent locus for his preaching. Second, the private house provided the most important place for his work. Here Paul followed the

pattern of Hellenistic teachers, a pattern which was continued by Christian teachers in the second century and later. Public speaking and often the use of public buildings required status, reputation, and recognized roles which Paul did not have. Public speaking, on the one hand, often necessitated some type of legitimation or invita- tion or, on the other hand, demanded that the speaker somehow force himself on his audience. Whereas Paul does not fit easily into these typical situations, the private home provided him with a plat- form where an audience could be obtained and taught without the problems of presenting oneself to be judged by the criteria of public speaking. On the other hand, Paul displays a self-understanding which implies that in a personal and informal way he carried his teaching into everyday activities such as his leatherworking trade. Paul was an artisan and a Jew as well as a believer in Christ. None of these roles commended Paul as a public speaker. We may con- clude that the widespread picture of Paul the public orator, sophist or street-corner preacher is a false one.

Finally, these conclusions must be related to the topography of the ancient city of the eastern Mediterranean. Life was lived in the

'37 II Cor. 4:7-10. Cf. 12:9-10. 138 I Cor. 4:8-13 and II Cor. 6:4-10. Cf. 11:23-29. 139 I'Thess. 2:1-12. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32:8-10 says that resident philosophers

(such as those who live in households or conduct schools) and those who speak like rhetoricians refuse to enter the true philosophic contest, the agon. See Malherbe, "Gentle as a Nurse," 205-207.

82

open. People lived close to one another. This made differentiation according to social class, nationality, skill and role very important. If walls and yards did not separate people, other things did. So there is a contrast of closeness and distance or differentiation in the ancient city. This may be illustrated by the physical form of the ci- ty. In Sardis, for example, we find the largest known synagogue in the Roman world. It is attached to a Palaestra and gymnasium complex on one side and on the other it had a row of shops, some of which were used by Jewish merchants, attached to its wall.'4 In Corinth the inscription, "Synagogue of the Hebrews" was found near a major agora in an area where small shops of artisans were found. 14 For centuries private houses clustered around one side of the great painted Stoa in Athens.'2 The physical distance between market, stoa, gymnasium, synagogue and private house might be very small indeed. The social and cultural distances, on the other hand, might be very great. In the social and cultural topography of the ancient city, the churches of Paul stood apart from the gym- nasium, the center of Hellenistic civilization and the synagogue, the center of Jewish culture. The Christians became, after all, the third race. It is not surprizing, then, that the gymnasium and synagogue were places of ambiguous status for Paul, but that the private home became the major platform for his preaching activity.

"10 Thomas Kraabel, "The Diaspora Synagogue," Aufstieg und Niedergang der R6mischen Welt II.19.1, 477-507. The synagogue at Sardis is by far the most ex- treme example of closeness to the life of the city but its openness is not unique. See Kraabel, "The Social System of Six Diaspora Synagogues," in Ancient Synagogues, ed. J. Gutmann (Brown Judaic Studies 22; Chico, CA 1981), esp. 84-86.

'4' H. N. Fowler, Corinth (Athens, 1929-) 8, Pt. 1, No. 111. '42 Wycherely, ' `Painted Stoa," 31.